I figure it's okay to ask this because this is a Nikon forum. It might be a trouble starter in the Canon. I don't want that.

I'm just trying to figure out why I like the Nikon images better. Are the optics really just that much better?

I wonder if it's because I've only been looking at primes like the 35 1.8g and 50mm, which are only $200, and Canon doesn't really have good equivalents at that price.

I ask because I'm yet another person deciding. I like the ergonomics of the Canon, but the actual pictures look better to me on the Nikon. In other words, I really want to like the Canon better because of the feel. But I want the images of the Nikon, which are most important.

I've seen many pictures on something like potn canon forums. Their 50 1.4 just isn't that sharp in what I've seen. Am I fooling myself? Almost none of the pictures look good on there unless it's by at least a 5d.

help me. i'm going crazy over this.

edit: I do kind of like that new 3200. feels like a little chunk, stocky camera.

It's all about the images and what pleases you. I have Canon equipment but if the Nikon images look better and sharper to you I would go that way. It isn't about the equipment you shoot it about the images your produce and what makes you happy. I'm sure I would be just as happy with Nikon as I am with Canon.

The cameras' color palettes are different, so you might be drawn by that. Canon has a history of focus issues, so that may be an influencer.

Also, it can take a trained eye to note certain things like focus, focus point, as well as color. This can be something one is born with and / or developed over a period of years. Often those with more expensive gear have more years and / or natural ability to note in-focus shots and that's what you see posted.

Also, the type of noise that Nikon cameras produce has been called more film-like, which can also be pleasing. I believe that this type of controlled digital noise is also capable of being sharpened more and better in PP.

A personal observation and generalization: There are certain groups of individuals who like to show off their f1.4 lenses with razor thin focal planes, shooting them hand held. The focal planes are so thin, that one's bodily sway (photographer or subject) can affect whether the end result is in focus or not.

I think it's really down to the photographer, subject, and post processing. For the record, I've seen more stunning photography work by Canon wedding shooters than Nikon users, but I'm pretty sure that's just because most wedding photographers use Canon.

johnnyPicture wrote:
I wonder if it's because I've only been looking at primes like the 35 1.8g and 50mm, which are only $200, and Canon doesn't really have good equivalents at that price.
The Canon 35mm f/2 is a very sharp lens and can be had for about $260 on B+S.

johnnyPicture wrote:
Their 50 1.4 just isn't that sharp in what I've seen.
On my tests of the D800 w/50G f/1.4 and 5DM2 w/50 f/1.4 the lenses are very close in sharpness. The Canon 50 f/1.4 focus can be finicky but if you nail the focus the lens is very usable at f/1.4. Here are some 5DM2+50:

tobicus wrote:
I think it's really down to the photographer, subject, and post processing. For the record, I've seen more stunning photography work by Canon wedding shooters than Nikon users, but I'm pretty sure that's just because most wedding photographers use Canon.

snapsy wrote:
The Canon 35mm f/2 is a very sharp lens and can be had for about $260 on B+S.

On my tests of the D800 w/50G f/1.4 and 5DM2 w/50 f/1.4 the lenses are very close in sharpness. The Canon 50 f/1.4 focus can be finicky but if you nail the focus the lens is very usable at f/1.4. Here are some 5DM2+50:

I can't afford full frame! That's what I was saying. Unless it is at least a 5d classic, I can't see the "goodness" I like to see. When I look at the 35 1.8g or 50 1.8g, I see razor sharp on the crop cameras. Whether that sharpness is the end all beat all, I don't know. I just want a good portrait lens, so maybe sharpness isn't what I need. I just can't stand the slightest bit oof or soft (again, i have no idea if that is good or bad.)

And honestly, like many people that have no idea what they're talking about, I'd be interested in selling my skills as a photographer with nice primes. (family photos, outdoor, no studio.)

edit: and no offense intended, but those don't look super sharp to me, whether they were canon or nikon, though I truly appreciate you posting them. Maybe it was the subject matter?

johnnyPicture wrote:
I can't afford full frame! That's what I was saying. Unless it is at least a 5d classic, I can't see the "goodness" I like to see. When I look at the 35 1.8g or 50 1.8g, I see razor sharp on the crop cameras. Whether that sharpness is the end all beat all, I don't know. I just want a good portrait lens, so maybe sharpness isn't what I need. I just can't stand the slightest bit oof or soft (again, i have no idea if that is good or bad.)

And honestly, like many people that have no idea what they're talking about, I'd be interested in selling my skills as a photographer with nice primes. (family photos, outdoor, no studio.)

edit: and no offense intended, but those don't look super sharp to me, whether they were canon or nikon, though I truly appreciate you posting them. Maybe it was the subject matter?...Show more →

If you're convinced that a Nikon body and lenses will produce "sharper" results for you then you should just go ahead with that route to prevent any future cognitive dissonance. But as a dual-system user myself the reality is that either system can produce equally sharp photos in the right hands and with the right PP.

I did see that in more specific sub forums on potn that pictures are sharper. They seem to be images made by hands more capable than the generic lens archive photos. I have more to think about. Thanks.

What i don't like is the having to buy "L" lenses. Makes me think I'm getting something sub standard otherwise. I don't know what the "L" is for Nikon, though.

johnnyPicture wrote:
I did see that in more specific sub forums on potn that pictures are sharper. They seem to be images made by hands more capable than the generic lens archive photos. I have more to think about. Thanks.

What i don't like is the having to buy "L" lenses. Makes me think I'm getting something sub standard otherwise. I don't know what the "L" is for Nikon, though.

I wouldn't get hung up on lens designations. Most of the premium for L lenses is either due to wider apertures or more modern coatings. But there are plenty of very good non-L lenses, such as the 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8, and the 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. Here are a few 5D + 70-200mm photos; I bought the 70-200mm this past year on B+S for $475 in like-new condition.

Image sharpness is a visual illusion that can be created/recreated by applying some math algorithms in post. For example, you can use GIMP ( http://refocus-it.sourceforge.net/ ) to go from this before image:

Those examples show that while you may be able to rescue some useful information from what at first seems like a throwaway shot, there is no substitute for a sharp and well focused capture that was taken correctly to begin with.

Re: Canon vs Nikon- it was actually my experience that Canon shots always looked a little crisper/more detailed than Nikon. It was down to that Nikon used less aggressive sharpening settings by default in the camera. You can see this mentioned in reviews of Nikon vs. Canon DSLRs, for example at DPReview. At least this was the case back when my camera was current (D80). I don't know if things have changed.

Now that I shoot RAW and sharpen myself, I do not find my shots lacking in this area.

Very simple answer to your question. Rent a camera body and lens from each manufacturer from lensrentals.com. Take the weekend and shoot to your hearts content. Compare shots etc...then make your decision. Stop looking at online photos which could be affected by a thousand variables which may or many not have anything to do with the images that either system is capable of producing.

PS - I shoot with both N and C and don't find that either one is really that much better than the other.